PI Brief Update

Sigh of relief (from sanctions) for group litigation concussion claims - Lucy Stock, Temple Garden Chambers

24/09/26. Hughes & Ors v World Rugby Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 2149 (KB)

The Claimants in a high-profile group litigation, involving around 1,000 former players from rugby union (“RU”) and rugby league (“RL”), have successfully defended an application made by the Defendants (World Rugby Limited, The Welsh Rugby Union, and Rugby Football Union) to strike out roughly 500 individual claims, including 377 RU and 153 RL cases. On 21 August 2026, Senior Master Jeremy Cook granted the Claimants relief from sanctions in relation to their failure to comply with the terms of previous “unless orders” made by the Court.

The Claimants allege that the Defendants owed them a core duty of care to protect against the risk of neurological injury sustained from repeated impact from matches and training and had failed to take steps to prevent or reduce that risk or bring it to the Claimants’ attention. The Defendants challenge the nature and scope of the duty of care alleged and assert that the relevant governing bodies had taken appropriate action to reduce the risk of neurological injury.

Procedural position

The main procedural breaches were in relation to the failure of hundreds of the claimants to provide essential neurology interviews, clinical summaries and prognosis reports which created substantial delays in the disclosure process.

In RU, the first disclosure order was made on 20 May 2024, requiring disclosure of documents relating to the “testing process” including brain scans, letters of diagnosis and neurology interviews and neuropsychological assessments [7]. In RL, the first disclosure order was made in October 2023: an extension of time was granted in February 2024 to allow disclosure of medical records, and condition and prognosis reports, including the relevant experts’ opinion within their specialism, by 31 October 2024. The final position was that the “testing process” documents were to be produced by 31 October 2024 in both RU and RL. After the Claimants failed to comply with these orders, Senior Master Cook concluded that unless orders were required. The Claimants appealed against the case management order which was heard and dismissed by Dexter Dias J in November 2025, following which the deadline for disclosure was extended by the judge to 6 February 2026, and then by consent to 13 February 2026.

In addition, on 20 July 2026, the Claimants’ lead solicitor, Mr Boardman of the firm Rylands Garth, emailed the court to alert them that he was intending to come off record; this was on account of the Claimants having become aware of the deficiencies in their legal representation. On 31 July 2026, the Claimants confirmed that their new representation would be KP Law, a larger and better resourced firm, with the ongoing support of Leigh Day as consultants. 

Relief from sanctions and application of the Denton criteria

Pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 3.9, in considering whether to grant relief from sanctions, “the Court will consider all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable it to deal justly with the application, including the need: (a) for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost; and (b) to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.”

Senior Master Cook was satisfied that the Claimants identified by the Defendants in their application stood struck out; however, he held that he was prepared, albeit “with some hesitation” [32], to grant relief from sanctions to all the identified Claimants. Senior Master Cook applied the well-known three-stage test identified derived from Denton v TH White [2014] 1 WLR 3926:

1. Identify and assess the seriousness and significance of the failure to comply with the relevant procedural rule;
2. Consider why the default occurred; and
3. Evaluate all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable the court to deal justly with the application including in particular the factors in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of the rule, i.e., to consider whether relief is appropriate in all the circumstances.

Senior Master Cook considered that the breaches were serious, significant and widespread, and that despite the evidence of Mr Boardman which sought to blame the default on third parties, his failure to “grasp a fundamental element of civil litigation cannot in any circumstances amount to a good reason for the default” [79].

The overriding objective and the concept of justice which “lies at the heart of the third stage” [80] ultimately weighed in favour of the Claimants. Although Senior Master Cook accepted that there had been numerous procedural breaches, he held that striking out the claims and bringing litigation to an end would unfairly penalise the individual claimants many of whom bore no responsibility for the procedural failings [82]. A fair trial was still possible despite the breaches, especially with the Claimants having instructed reliable and sufficiently resourced new representation [85].

Moreover, dismissing the proceedings would likely result in a significant number of professional negligence claims against former solicitors, placing additional pressure on court resources [90]. Senior Master Cook also considered the wider public importance of the case which may potentially impact amateur and professional levels of sports nationwide: it was important that the lead claimants be chosen from as wide a sample as possible (per Lancaster and others v Peacock QC [2020] EWHC 1231 (Ch)).

Despite the countervailing interest of litigation being conducted efficiently, Senior Master Cook found that on the balance relief should be granted and that the very real prejudice to the Defendants could be overcome by case management and the imposition of requirements to pay their costs incurred due to the breaches in question.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/Kolbz